Md. Taj Uddin Laskar Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2025)

Md. Taj Uddin Laskar Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned suspension order dated 04.10.2024 set aside and quashed; petitioner reinstated in service forthwith; liberty reserved to the respondent authorities to conclude the pending disciplinary proceeding expeditiously. Remaining prayers (quashing of the charge memo, enquiry reports and consequential charge-holding orders) were not granted, as the disciplinary proceeding was permitted to continue.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned suspension order dated 04.10.2024 is bad in law because the suspension was not reviewed within the stipulated period of 90 days as required by Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291, and is therefore liable to be interfered with.

Court's answer

The review of the suspension took place beyond the 90-day period: the review order was passed on 22.01.2025 (meeting held 06.01.2025), which falls outside 90 days counted from the suspension dated 04.10.2024, and even counted from the meeting date it was the 92nd day after suspension.

Ratio / Principle

Testing the impugned suspension order dated 04.10.2024 against the principle laid down in Ajay Kumar Choudhary, the Court held that it had outlived its utility, and the petitioner succeeded in making out a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Key takeaways

The impugned suspension order dated 04.10.2024 stands set aside and quashed, and the petitioner is to be reinstated in service forthwith.ratio¶45
The respondent authorities remain at liberty to take the disciplinary proceeding already initiated against the petitioner to its logical conclusion, and that too as soon as practicable.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court, WP(C)/5904/2024 (Robin Phukan J., 06.05.2025): A Senior Lecturer-cum-In-Charge Principal of DIET, Hailakandi, suspended by order dated 04.10.2024, succeeded in a writ petition under Article 226 because the reviewing authority's extension order dated 22.01.2025 (review meeting held 06.01.2025) was passed beyond the 90-day limit prescribed in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291 - falling on the 92nd day even if counted from the meeting date. The suspension order was set aside and quashed and the petitioner ordered reinstated forthwith; however, the authorities were expressly left free to carry the pending disciplinary proceeding to its logical conclusion as soon as practicable.

Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010235882024

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/5904/2024

MD. TAJ UDDIN LASKAR S/O- LATE MOTOFAR ALI LASKAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BAHADURPUR, P.O.- RANGAUTI, PIN- 788155, DIST.- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL (ELEMENTARY) EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI -06.

2:THE DIRECTOR OF STATE COUNCIL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19.

3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI

DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM.

4:TRIDIP ROY A.C.S. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI

Page No.# 2/6

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI

DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI ASSAM.

5:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS HAILAKANDI DISTRICT CIRCLE DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM.

6:SALEH AHMED CHOUDHURY LECTURER DISTRICT INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING (DIET) HAILAKANDI ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K N CHOUDHURY, N GAUTAM,MR N Z CHOUDHURY,MR N A MAZARBHUIYA

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, FOR CAVEATOR,MS. S BORA,MS B DEVI,SC, SCERT, ASSAM,GA, ASSAM

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

ORDER

06.05.2025

Heard Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Pegu, learned standing counsel, Education (Elementary) Department, appearing for the respondent No.1, Mr. H. Baruah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. B. Gogoi, learned standing counsel, SCERT, for the respondent No.2, Ms. K. Phukan, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent No.3 and Ms. B. Devi, learned counsel for the respondent No.6.

2. Extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is sought to be invoked by the petitioner, namely, Taj Uddin Laskar, to set aside the

Page No.# 3/6

order, dated 04.10.2024 vide eCF No.303965/249, by which he is placed under suspension from service and also to set aside the show-cause/charge memo dated 22.12.2023 in connection with departmental proceeding vide eCF No.303965/165, issued by the respondent No.1 and also to set aside and quash the enquiry report, prepared by the respondent No.4 and the report prepared by the District Commissioner, Hailakandi, as well as the Director, SCERT, Assam, based on which show-cause notice dated 22.12.2023, was issued and to set aside and quash the entire proceeding arising out of eCF No.303965/165, dated 22.12.2023 and also the order dated 18.10.2024, vide eCF No.303965/269, by which the Inspector of Schools, Hailakandi, was allowed to hold the charge of Principal (i/c) of District Institute of Education and Training (DIET), Hailakandi, until further order and also the order dated 08.10.2024, by which the District Administration has instructed respondent No.6 to hold the charge of the Principal (i/c) of DIET, Hailakandi.

3. The background facts leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under:-

“The petitioner was working as Senior Lecturer in the DIET, Hailakandi and he was entrusted the duty of In-Charge Principal and while he was discharging his duty, a complaint was lodged by All Assam Minorities Student Union (AAMSU) against him before the Additional District Commissioner, Hailakandi. Thereafter, the Additional District Commissioner, Hailakandi, seized certain important files from the petitioner and threatened him to face consequences.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being WP(C) No.4357/2023 and vide order dated 02.08.2023, this Court was pleased to direct the respondents not to take any coercive action against him. However, in violation of the aforementioned order of this Court, the respondent authorities have issued show-cause notice on 22.12.2023, and initiated departmental proceeding against the petitioner based on some frivolous report and lodged a complaint against him. Subsequently, he was suspended from service on

Page No.# 4/6

04.10.2024 and vide impugned order dated 18.10.2024, and the Inspector of Schools, Hailakandi, was allowed to hold the charge as Principal (i/c) of DIET, Hailakandi, until further order. Thereafter, the petitioner, being aggrieved filed an appeal under Rule 14 of the Assam Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, which is yet to be disposed of. And the suspension order dated 04.10.2024 was not revoked and also not reviewed within 90 days.”

4. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was suspended on 04.10.2024 and since then the order has not been reviewed by the respondent authorities and in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India through its Secretary & Anr. , reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 , the order of suspension has to be reviewed within 90 days from the date of suspension and in the event of memorandum of article of charge/charge-sheet was filed, reasoned order has to be passed for extension of suspension period and since the suspension order has not been reviewed within the stipulated period of 90 days, the impugned suspension order dated 04.10.2024 is bad in law and therefore, Mr. Bhuyan has contended to interfere with the same.

5. On the other hand, Mr. G. Pegu, learned standing counsel, Education (Elementary) Department, produced an order before this Court dated 22.01.2025, vide eCF No.303965/353 and submits that the authority has reviewed the suspension order in its meeting held on 06.01.2025 and extended the suspension period for an additional 3(three) months for further enquiry and since the suspension order has been reviewed, it cannot be said that the impugned suspension order is bad in law and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition.

6. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the order produced before this Court today by Mr. Pegu, learned standing counsel for the respondent authorities, submits that even if it is accepted that the review meeting was held on 06.01.2025 by the respondent authorities, yet, the order was passed on 22.01.2025 and if it is accepted that it was, in fact, reviewed on 06.01.2025, then also it was beyond 90

Page No.# 5/6

days being the order of suspension was passed on 04.10.2024 and as such, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) , the suspension order cannot sustain and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition.

7. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the order dated 22.01.2025 vide eCF No.303965/353 and also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) .

8. It is to be noted here that the law regarding review of suspension order and extension of the period of suspension, is dealt with by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) , is extracted herein below:-

“ 21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the person concerned to any department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognised principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognise that the previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time-limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation, departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us.”

9. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 04.10.2024 and the review order was passed on 22.01.2025, though the meeting was held on 06.01.2025. If we count the period of 90 days from the date of suspension, then the order being passed on 22.01.2025 cannot be said to be within the period of 90 days

Page No.# 6/6

as contemplated in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) , and if we count it from the date of the meeting held on 06.01.2025, then also it was beyond 90 days i.e. on 92^nd days after the suspension order was being passed.

10. And having tested the impugned suspension order in the light of the principle laid down in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) , this Court is of the view that the impugned suspension order dated 04.10.2024 outlived its utility. Thus, the petitioner has succeeded in making out a case for interference of this Court by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

11. In the result, the impugned suspension order dated 04.10.2024, stands set aside and quashed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith. However, it is made clear that the respondent authorities shall be at liberty to take the disciplinary proceeding, which was initiated against the petitioner to its logical conclusion that too, as soon as practicable.

12. In terms of above, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE

Comparing Assistant